Well, the latter point was more a good guess since there are
not so many reviews out there on the 16-85. Sharpness was
my main concern, since it's the only thing you can't correct for offline.
I would really appreciate any comments, be they however devastating.
Here we go:

I don't have any hands-on experience with a NIKKOR 18mm, but if you
look into Ken Rockwell's Review ( where the choice of the 16-85 got quite
some bashing, by the way), you'll see a few sample shots showing that
the difference is, as to be expected, tiny.
I hope Gordon forgives me pointing you to the "competition" ,
but I'd gladly send you the URL if you dopn't have it already.

thanks for all the feadback so far. Any chance of reading from another
owner of this lense, hugh?
As you've read above, I am mostly after judging sharpness, so here's
another batch with that focus:

Location: Tiny but picturesque little town of Kettwig, Ruhr area, Germany
Aperture: F/11
Shutter: 1/500s
ISO: 250
Focal length: 68mm
DEFAULT SHARPENING in the jpg processing. According to my few little
tests that means some loss of "impression" of sharpness -- +2 is probably the best choice with the D300.

So looking at the numbers above, one should think that this is it: the
vanilla area of performance of such a lense.
See for yourselves:

Thanks for the review! I am currently shooting with an 18-135mm on a D80 (pretty standard, i know) as my general purpose lens. I like the new 18-105mm VR prospect, and I wouldnt mind upgrading to the D90 in the mid/near future.

However, I REALLY like the wider angle, and I dont end up shooting at my telephoto end that often with my 18-135mm (thats what my 70-300 is for)! Would you recommend me bumping up to the 16-85mm VR? Or would it really make that much difference?

I think I've written it somewhere already: For a comparism
btw. 16 and 18mm you may want to look at Ken Rockwell's
review of the 16-85. Read with a little care though: The guy is
brilliant, no doubt, but when he DOES form an opinion it can get
rather subjective and he gives the old 16-85 qute a bashing in
his review.
I just love that lens and I would buy it again. I also have the
70-300 and I do find myself swapping those two a little more
often than I would have thought before. So you may want to
consider the 18-200, or even the Tamron super-zoom (was it
18-270?).
I'll see if I can post a few comparisms betw. 16 and 18 with my
lens lateron.

I, too, have a 70-300 lens (soon to upgrade to the VR instead of the G model), so getting an all-around super-zoom lens isnt really a big deal for me. I like the Nikkor 18-200mm, but I find when I shoot at the long end (which isnt often), its for a purpose, like an air show I attended this summer. For the telephoto, I'd just grab my 70.

I dig the range on my 18-135, but I'd gladly trade the extra length for not only the extra 2mm on the wide end, but also the VR! I, too, am a frequent Rockwell reader and had to sift through the 16-85 review. I was impressed with the quality of the samples and build quality (probably on par with the 18-200 by the looks of things).

I read Rockwell review on the 16-85, and as usual with all his reviews take them with a grain of salt, but the only negative seems to be the price as its the same as the 18-200.

He is suggesting that he would buy the 18-200 because it covers more, but the 2 mm at the start of the lens is often more important than the other end of the zoom. He has access to the 12-24 at the wide angle, but you may not.

The 16-85 is sharper at the wide end and has better VR and less distortion than the 18-200. I am sure if it was cheaper he would recommend it.

I went through similar things with the 15-85 for the canon and for a general purpose zoom lens its awesome. For what its worth you have made the right choice in my opinion.